September 9, 2010

I'm wondering, after reading this hyperventilation in the always-awful "On Faith" section of the Washington Post. The author is Gustav Niebuhr:

In the United States, short of causing arson, you can burn a book, just as you can America's most sacred symbol, the U.S. flag. It's Constitutionally guaranteed. Free speech.

The moral question here is, how do we handle our freedom, which permits us appalling, anti-social acts?

As an American who deeply believes in free speech, I regard burning a book as a nearly unspeakably terrible thing. It is an assault on knowledge, and the societal value of allowing people to read and decide for themselves whether what they read has meaning to them. Torch a book and you at least symbolically deny your fellow men and women that freedom.

What's more, you replicate images of a political brutality--book burnings in Germany in the 1930s--that will haunt our planet for generations to come.

Good lord. There's an immense difference between burning your own book as a way of saying "I hate this book" — which adds more expression to the marketplace of ideas — and the confiscation and destruction of other people's books — which is about depriving people of access to expression that they want to consume.

It's offensive to say "I hate this book" about a book that some people revere, but that's the point. It's a vigorous, vicious expression. Burning your own copy of a book is the same thing. Unless you possess the only copy of the book — or, perhaps, an artistically or historically distinctive copy — the burning is just a way of being showily expressive and getting a big audience. It's absurd that any clown who wants attention can light a tiny fire and become world famous. Get a grip, people.

I find it hard to believe that Niebuhr and hyperventilators like him are big readers of important books, because their minds seem pretty feeble to me. "Torch a book and you at least symbolically deny your fellow men and women that freedom." At least symbolically. Or, to put it another way, i.e., truthfully: You don't deny other people anything. You give them something: the information that is your hatred of a book. And as they "decide for themselves whether what they read has meaning," they can take into account that you hate the book. It's not going to be a very influential piece of information, because you're just some attention whore who burned a book instead of articulating a pithy critique of it.

Yes, conceivably, a private group burning its own books might be intimidating, but that would only be because we have other, much greater reasons to fear that group or the movement it represents. And yes, when you burn a book, you adopt an image associated with the Nazis, but that marginalizes you. We don't cower every time some marginal idiot draws a swastika or does the Hitler salute. You're free to express yourself, but I think lavishing outrage on some nobody empowers him. Why not ignore what is worthless? It's a marketplace of ideas. Why are you even browsing the crap?

I as well strongly associate book burning with Nazi acts. It is something of a double whammy...not only are you destroying someone "else's" sacred book but you are replicating scenes that never should be seen again in any form.

HD, please acknowledge that the Christians in this country, aside from this guy and the 50 in his church, aren't burning books on Saturday. What would you say his 51 people make up in actual percentages?

Far less significant than the quarter (thereabouts) of Muslims that think terrorism's just fine and dandy, wouldn't you say?

Well, that's because you're a blockhead who can't distinguish between the actions of a government and the actions of a private citizen.

If you want to go out in your front yard and burn your personal copy of Palin's autobiography or whatever book you particularly hate, have at it. Nothing Nazi-like about it whatsoever, you'll just be demonstrating your own idiocy.

Leftists have trouble with this because, at their core, they deny the presence of individual liberty, and thus can see no difference between state and private action ...because you are owned by the state.

If the state can't do it, neither can you.

Plus, they forget that the Nazis were also leftists.

Just yesterday, my son was aghast because his lefty high school political science teacher claimed that examples of 'right wing' (defined for test purposes as 'reactionary') included Nazis as well as Stalin and Mao. When he pointed out that they were communists, i.e. of the left, she countered that their descent into violence was inherently right-wing.

I believe it is a self-aggrandizing act by a fringe player. Wish he wouldn't, just as I wish Phelps wouldn't.

However, odd, is it not, that the same hand wringers that abhor our Islamaphobia over the acts of a miniscule minority of Muslims, always talk about the "exploding Muslim street" when anything that might be offensive to Islam is proffered.

However, odd, is it not, that the same hand wringers that abhor our Islamaphobia over the acts of a miniscule minority of Muslims, always talk about the "exploding Muslim street" when anything that might be offensive to Islam is proffered.

Well I have offered this question to our resident left commentors and not surprisingly never heard a rationale for it.

This Pastor is already in a marginalized sect of Christianity. He thrives on that like Muslims thrive on being hated for following god's announced sole prophet Mohammed into many evil ways that are abhorrent to us. Tolerance of the marginalized is great policy since it deprives them of the aggrieved self pity card. When they attack our edifices and social institutions such as free women and free worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then the push back should come. As to burning religious materials, that is a traditional Judeo-Christian disposal method for materials associated with evil spirits from occult usage or idol worship.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Judaism and Islam shared the idea that worshipping of idols/icons was precisely what Judaism and Islam, Moses and Allah, sought to overcome. To sum up: one ultimate being and only one, and no icons/idols thereof. Now in practice, see Mecca and the Wailing Wall and all the rest, there is, after all this seems to be a human weakness that Moses and Allah not altogether successfully battled, second level idolatry going on, but the thought that the revealed word that is sacred is somehow contained in a book that is material, is the book itself!, this strikes me as precisely opposite the point Judaism and Islam were/should be trying to make. So we have an idol worshiping Christian burning iconically a book that is not in itself properly thought sacred, for to think so is to begin creeping towards the worship of icons, and Muslims and left-wing materialists, amongst others, are in an uproar. Go figure.

The American military is concerned that the local Islamist moderates will go haywire when they learn that the American are not going to burn a pile of KOREANS, but a pile of Korans. Translation difficulties are our best hope. The Islamists would applaud us for burning a pile of Koreans for being the wrong religion.

I resist doing away with a book of any sort, but it's an irrational inhibition.

It really was one thing to gather up books that were irreplaceable or otherwise rare and burn them because the result was a loss of what was in the book. The information could be controlled or even outright destroyed. That's simply not the case any longer. I don't know that it's even significant, so much, that China or Saudi Arabia or whomever bans the Bible or any other book any more... just so long as people there have access to the internet.

So now it's symbolic only where it *used* to be a profound tragedy if a library was purged of books containing ideas that were out of favor or the only copies of histories are destroyed by crazy emperor in ancient China. The Taliban destroying archaeological statues was that sort of tragedy.

I've heard stories about authors with one handwritten copy of a manuscript... losing it. And authors used to send out a typed manuscript in the mail with only a carbon copy for back-up. That must have been terrifying. If the publisher didn't misplace it, the post office might lose it. Writing advice used to include things like keeping extra paper from the same batch so that the first few pages could be retyped when they got trashed without ending up with a manuscript that now included various shades of white.

Now, sure, it's "back up your work, dummy!" but beyond that the idea of losing something forever has become near impossible.

The reverence some of us were brought up to feel about the binding and physical pages of a book is a hold-over and relic of a fragility that simply doesn't exist any more.

"A fad or heresy is the exaltation of something which even if true, is secondary or temporary in its nature against those things which are essential and eternal, those things which always prove themselves true in the long run. In short, it is the setting up of the mood against the mind."

(William Blake 168)

BTW - I predict Althouse will be furiously attacked for this opinion.. Its brilliant in its common sense simplicity.

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." -- Qur'an 5:33

While I think it is crass, I hope the Rev does it. The world is a harsh place out there, and Muslims are just going to have to get used to people who disagree with them.

And if General Patraeus is worried about increased violence, I have to wonder what's to stop recruiters from making things up. There were false reports about US soldiers raping muslim women, a koran being flushed down a toilet, and faked Muhammed cartoons (these last ones by Imams in Denmark). If the enemy is going lie about what we do, then who cares? We're damned for a dime and for a dollar.

The same people who are expressing outrage (which is their right) over the slated burning of the Koran because it is offensive are in fact the same people who are calling those who are offended by the ground zero mosque racist.

IF you expect a group to avoid offending another group unnecessarily, why not expect it of all?

Further, we are told by these same folks that burning the Koran puts Americans in danger abroad as if the book burners are responsible for the actions of the people who kill supposedly because they are offended... yet those building the mosque have no responsibility for anything that might happen because of the offense over the placement of the mosque.

Finally, if we are so darn sensitive, why on earth are we, the mainstream culture in America, required to be sensitive about the Muslim religion, yet we allow them to trample our beliefs about equality and have to pretend it is okay?

Back in the Seventies, in Galaxy Magazine, Spider Robinson was the book reviewer. His schtick was that, if he didn't like a book, he would notify readers that he had burned his review copy in his woodburning stove, perhaps mentioning its flammable qualities as well.

Given how many publishers and authors inveighed against used bookstores as thieves this decade, they should be all in favor of the Spider Robinson solution -- and all in favor of the Koran thing, too.

Did you ever walk down the street in NYC or some big city and see some homeless guy selling books on the street? And he usually has the most ragged books or outdated books that noone will buy because they are obviosly trash and he has them laid out not on a table, but on the ground or in a shopping cart (describing a scenario I saw earlier in the week) ? Would anyone REALLY be offended if someone burned those books? How about outdated computer books? If someone throws books in the trash because they're taking up space or throws them on the fire to keep warm would anyone really get offended? How about recycling books? Would someone get extremely offended if instead of burning a book someone recycyled one? It's still destruction of a book.This is not to say that some books aren't more sacred than others or that burning a book couldn't be considered to be controversial or incendiary (like for example a priest burning a koran, or people burning an american flag).But if we had an old worn copy of Sex and the City or something by Nelson Demille , would anyone care what we did with it? Because I've been throwing away crap in my apartment for a while and may not have even realized that I was exhibiting nazi tendencies. Who knew?

The only interesting thing about this story is why it ever became a story in the first place. America is, after all, a big place and we have more than a few oddballs and nutjobs running around.

So how did the big media megaphone get fixed on this particular nutjob? (I don't know the anwwer and am not being snarky here.) Whoever started the bandwagon rolling might have been attracted by the speical neon-colored nuttiness of this guy; or it might have been handy as a story to advance an agenda (a counterweight to the GZ mosque, perhaps?); or it might have been a combination or something else entirely. To know the answer, you'd have to know where the story got its start.

Once Gen Petraeus weighed in with his concerns, however, the hyperventilating became not only inevitable but oddly necessary. Somehow an insignificant story about a nobody nutjob had to inflate to fill a bigger space. Ann's takedown is perfectly sensible on its own terms. But the bigger space still had to be filled with something. Hyperventilating was the unavoidable result, and Neibuhr's version may have been the best available.

Lisa wrote:Finally, if we are so darn sensitive, why on earth are we, the mainstream culture in America, required to be sensitive about the Muslim religion, yet we allow them to trample our beliefs about equality and have to pretend it is okay?

How sensitive is the Muslim world to us? Whenever there is a protest against America you always see the burning of American flags. Even when there isn't a "protest" it's commonplace to hear Death To America and Death to Israel being issued from mosques around the muslim world. There are never riots, though these are obviously meant as incendiary rhetoric. Yet, some Danish cartoonists or a Miss Universe say something negative about Islam and there is murder and rioting in the streets.Some no name priest suggests he is going to burn a koran and the President of the United States gets involved issuing proclamations about how unwise it is, as it will endanger our troops. It WILL endanger our troops by the way,but isn't that a reflection more on Muslims rather than us? Further, the imam building the mosque on 9/11 was just on tv suggesting that if we move the mosque from 9/11 it will cause problems in the Muslim world and will be a threat to national security. Seriously, if moving a mosque in the US causes riots then how moderate are Muslims? Jews cannot even set foot in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and christians can't even bring bibles into SA without a threat of decapitation. Yet do you hear about Jews or Christians rioting over this fact?

as well strongly associate book burning with Nazi acts. It is something of a double whammy...not only are you destroying someone "else's" sacred book but you are replicating scenes that never should be seen again in any form.

Ten Christian volunteer aid workers were shot to death by the Taliban who bragged about the act. These 10 folks were providing free medical aid to impoverished Muslims and the thanks they got were bodies riddled with AK-47 rounds.

So when someone says, hey, we really shouldn't do something that will offend them because it will make relations worse my response is:

It's not that it's burning a book. It's burning the magic Koran, and offending the magic Muslims who offer us a way of salvation if only we will be as sensitive as they are to affairs of the spirit and intellect.

yet those building the mosque have no responsibility for anything that might happen because of the offense over the placement of the mosque.

Not only that, Lisa, but the guy building the mosque said that NOT building the mosque might caught muslim extremists to do terrible things. Self serving, it sounds to me, but still. It is really strange to me that we have to sit around and worry about what we do in our own free country, for fear of what some jerks in another country (the same people who stone women to death for imagined slights and adultery) think of us or might do.

The type of people who would flip out about this stuff will never approve of us anyway.

Only slightly off topic, but if someone does manage to open a gay bar next to the Cordoba mosque and they call it The Hot Gates, would that offend Iranian Muslims to the point of killing random Greeks?

Hoosier Daddy wrote:So when someone says, hey, we really shouldn't do something that will offend them because it will make relations worse my response is:

Are you fracking serious?

Imagine if we used that argument when dealing with people who bomb abortion clinics.They hate us because of our policies (namely abortions). Therefore, what? They are justified in blowing up abortion clinics? Those who are thinking about getting abortions should give up and change their policy because it provoked some crazy person to commit violence? If that were the case, then shouldn't more pro lifers commit murder? In the case of terorrists who hate us for our policies, shouldn't we ask what policy they hate us for? If they hate us because we aren't supportive of their desire of driving the Jews of Israel into the sea, does that mean that it's a bad policy? I would think any policy for OBL that doesn't turn the world into an Islamic theocracy would be a bad policy to him ,and I'd also grant that were we to make it difficult for him to achieve his goals, he might hate us for our policies. So?

Yes, conceivably, a private group burning its own books might be intimidating

Oh, please! Let's stop with the moral equivalence. This speech is not threatening, anymore than burning the American flag is threatening.

The people who have their panties in a twist about burning the Koran (not you, Ann) are afraid of Islam, and afraid of what Islam might do. All the intimidation is on the other side.

It's absurd that any clown who wants attention can light a tiny fire and become world famous. Get a grip, people.

What you mean to say is, "Get a grip, Islam." Because they often punish blasphemy with murder. You know that, right? So his speech might be rude and provocative, but it's also brave. It's a defense of liberal culture and an attack on sharia.

"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others...So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Scott M wrote:Ah...so the Nigh Of The Long Knives happened at the END of the Nazi regime? And I suppose both Russia and China were taken over without any violence or pogroms at all.

What a tool.

What about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's desire to remake the world at Year Zero. The killing fields that occured when they started killing off all the intellectuals was them turning right wing? Puh-lease. The word Socialist is part of the word Nazi. How could they somehow not be considered socialist? That woman should not be teaching history.

An interesting historic note from the Wikipedia entry on book burning:

Uthman ibn 'Affan, the third Caliph of Islam after Muhammad, who is credited with overseeing the collection of the verses of the Qur'an, ordered the destruction of any other remaining text containing verses of the Quran after the Quran has been fully collected, circa 650. This was done to ensure that the collected and authenticated Quranic copy that Uthman collected became the primary source for others to follow, thereby ensuring the Quran remained authentic. Although the Qur'an had mainly been propagated through oral transmission, it also had already been recorded in at least three codices, most importantly the codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud in Kufa, and the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b in Syria. Sometime between 650 and 656, a committee appointed by Uthman is believed to have produced a singular version in seven copies, and Uthman is said to have "sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered any other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt."[13]

Althouse wrote:"I find it hard to believe that Niebuhr and hyperventilators like him are big readers of important books, because their minds seem pretty feeble to me. "Torch a book and you at least symbolically deny your fellow men and women that freedom." At least symbolically. Or, to put it another way, i.e., truthfully: You don't deny other people anything. You give them something: the information that is your hatred of a book."

This is the kind of thing that makes Althouse worth reading--she's got a mind and a sharp tongue to prove it.

When he pointed out that they were communists, i.e. of the left, she countered that their descent into violence was inherently right-wing.

And this is, of course, exactly backwards. Their descent into violence was no different than the Russian or Chinese Revolutions - socialism requires violence to (often) gain and (always) maintain power. The justification is that the good of the people demand that violence. And, since it is a collective, and not individual, good that is being considered, some people here or there sacrificed for the cause of socialism (whether communist, Fascist, Nazi, etc.) are a worthwhile price to pay.

In 1987, the Nasir-i Khusraw Foundation was established in Kabul, Afghanistan due to the collaborative efforts of several civil society and academic institutions, leading scholars and members of the Ismaili community. This site included video and book publishing facilities, a museum, and a library.[48] The library was a marvel in its extensive collection of fifty-five thousand books, available to all students and researchers, in the languages of Arabic, English, and Pashto. In addition, its Persian collection was unparalleled – including an extremely rare 12th-century manuscript of Firdawsi’s epic masterpiece The Book of Kings (Shāhnāma). The Ismaili collection of the library housed works from Hasan-i Sabbah and Nasir-i Khusraw, and the seals of the first Aga Khan. With the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan in the late 1980s and the strengthening of the Taliban forces, the library collection was relocated to the valley of Kayan. However, on August 12, 1998, the Taliban fighters ransacked the press, the museum, the video facilities and the library, destroying some books in the fire and throwing others in a nearby river. Not a single book was spared, including a thousand-year-old Quran.[49]

Michael Isikoff and Newsweek erroneously reported that Korans were flushed down the toilets at Gitmo. Several people were killed in subsequent riots. Shouldn't Isikoff and Newsweek be treated with the same contempt that is directed at the Rev. Jones and his flock.....The Rev. Jones obviously should refrain from this provocative act, and the press should refrain from reporting on it. Try making the argument that Newsweek should refrain from reporting on a (false) story that makes the Gitmo establishment look bad.

I consider burning a copy of the Koran much like burning a copy of Mein Kampf; an in-your-face repudiation of the violent, bigotted, totalitarian ideology promoted and forced on other by their adherents.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Judaism and Islam shared the idea that worshipping of idols/icons was precisely what Judaism and Islam, Moses and Allah, sought to overcome. To sum up: one ultimate being and only one, and no icons/idols thereof. Now in practice, see Mecca and the Wailing Wall and all the rest, there is, after all this seems to be a human weakness that Moses and Allah not altogether successfully battled, second level idolatry going on, but the thought that the revealed word that is sacred is somehow contained in a book that is material, is the book itself!, this strikes me as precisely opposite the point Judaism and Islam were/should be trying to make. So we have an idol worshiping Christian burning iconically a book that is not in itself properly thought sacred, for to think so is to begin creeping towards the worship of icons, and Muslims and left-wing materialists, amongst others, are in an uproar. Go figure.

Let me add that idolatry and apparent polytheism are some of the things that the more Puritan strains of Protestantism objected to with Roman Catholicism. Indeed, the church I have belonged to for some 40 years now has no pictures of an Aryan Jesus or anyone else, except for photos of former ministers in a hospitality room separate from the sanctuary.

I always thought that the parallel between Puritan Protestantism and Wahhabi Sunni Islam versus Shi'a Islam was interesting. Which may be why the Brits, in particular, were so enamored with the desert Arabs who resembled (non-Episcopal) Protestants in their practices, and dismissive of the Shi'a who resembled Catholics (and why they screwed up so badly when they divided up the middle east, and in particular, created Iraq).

Of the three books, the Christian Bible, Torah, and the Koran, I would suggest that the Bible is the least revered, as a physical object, by those who use it religiously. And, I think that that too may be because of our Puritan roots here. It is what is in the book that matters, and not the physical book itself.

I think anyone's entitled to burn the books he owns. Nevertheless, it's an act that expresses a fear and hatred of ideas. So a man can be entitled to do it, but he shouldn't be surprised if it makes him look like a jerk and brings discredit on the people who associate with him.

Lem, the news break on our local talk station just mentioned that the FBI visited the FL nut to talk to him about the threats that he had received and help protect him.

(I'm suspecting that was a little of column A, a little of column B really, but if they're going to protect him (which is their job if he's getting threats for exercising his nutty but protected speech), I don't think the ACLU should have a beef.)

This got me thinking about the controversy around the South Park episode in which Mohammed or may not have been depicted...

If this Terry Jones was as clever as the one in Monty Python, he might hold up a book wrapped in a brown paper bag, and incinerate the sucker with no further comment. Was it really a Koran? Or just a bunch of blank pages stapled together to represent the Koran? The Audacity Of Hope? Infinite Jest? Maybe a couple Beatles records? Perhaps it was really a small effigy of George Bush wearing a cowboy hat wrapped in a crudely simulated American flag with six-pointed stars? The possibilities are endless...

Twice a year, Evangelicals turn up in Salt Lake City specifically to protest at the semiannual world conference of the LDS Church. Not to protest their political views (on that they're pretty much identical), but to protest the utter gall of Mormons proclaiming themselves "Christian."

At worst, there's a little shoving and shouting. As Evangelicals are openly offended by Mormons 24/7, it's not so much the message that ticks Mormons off as the sheer rudeness. But, hey, it's a free country. If that's how they want to waste their weekends, the more power to them.

Say, how about burning a Book of Mormon instead? Mormons would appreciate the publicity and the opportunity to make all the appropriate noises about "tolerance" while venting clouds of self-righteous indignation. And the intellectual left will finally rush to the church's defense.

The WSJ had an article about this guy and his church and claimed that the ACLU is actually defending a couple of his 'parishoners' kids who wore Islam is the Devil t-shirts to school and were told to not wear them.

About the only Constitutional right I know of the ACLU won't defend you on is the second amendment.

You can burn your own. It is a free country. Aside from a few skinheads and supermecists I don't think many would consider it a 'holy' book but you never know. They might not like you but there aren't many of them, nasty as they may be.

I do remember just last Holloween when some fundementalist church out west sponsored a book burning of Harry Potter editions calling it "satanic". Seemed like a waste but there you go.

I do remember just last Holloween when some fundementalist church out west sponsored a book burning of Harry Potter editions calling it "satanic".

Well lets put it this way hdhouse, if the Islamists would just resort to burning the Bible, the American flag, pictures of Pat Robertson or even Mickey Mouse I will consider that a major victory and step forward.

Then again I'm betting we'll have a fully functioning colony on Alpha Centauri before that happens.

Aside from a few skinheads and supermecists I don't think many would consider it a 'holy' book but you never know. They might not like you but there aren't many of them, nasty as they may be.

That's funny, seems to me our Homeland Security Chieftess said those guys were like the biggest National Security threat since the GOP was running Congress. Or something like that.....

Pogo: When he pointed out that they were communists, i.e. of the left, she countered that their descent into violence was inherently right-wing.

Is there an official term for this kind of thinking? It's like some weird mirror-fallacy of "no true Scotsman". I've seen the same argument substituting "inherently religious" for "inherently right-wing" re commie blood-baths, among people trying to argue that abolishing religion would deprive people of reasons for slaughtering each other.

Cognitive dissonance, I guess, but there ought to be a snazzier phrase.

I associate book burning with a very regrettable tendency towards censorship of ideas by American conservatives:

In 1918, the United States Post Office burned four issues of publisher Margaret Anderson's "Little Review" magazine because they contained excerpts from James Joyce's then unpublished novel, "Ulysses." Anderson was later indicted and fined for obscenity.

In 1935, the library trustees of Warsaw, Indiana ordered that all copies of Theodore Dreiser's novels in their libraries be burned for its obscene and leftist content. As a boy, Dreiser went to school in Warsaw, Indiana.

In 1939 John Steinbeck's landmark novel, "Grapes of Wrath", about the tragic plight of migrant farm workers from the Oklahoma "dust bowl" were burned all over the country for both its political content and "vulgarity."

In the early fifties, Senator Joseph McCarthy sent his aides to search U.S. Information Service libraries for "subversive" books. This led to some of these books to be burned U.S. Information Service libraries overseas. To his credit, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a speech condemning these acts. "Don't join the book burners," he said.

HDHouse wrote:You can burn your own. It is a free country. Aside from a few skinheads and supermecists I don't think many would consider it a 'holy' book but you never know. They might not like you but there aren't many of them, nasty as they may be.

So you don't have a problem with book burning per se, it's just holy books. What is your opinion on the NEA giving 15000 dollars to Serrano to have a crucifix dropped in urine? It's not book burning, but it is provocative. What if this priest pissed or shat on a koran instead of burning it? Are you worried about the fumes that would be produced from burnt paper that would separate burning a koran versus desecrating it in another way?If this priest pissed on a koran would that not incense the muslim world? Just trying to guage where the left falls on insulting religion or religious symbols.

Interpol has now issued a terror warning alert in the event the dumbasses go forward with their book burnings.

There has been a rancid campaign of hatred against Muslims, led by Gingrich, Palin and others. We are harvesting the bitter fruit of that hate campaign.

The comparison between the planned Muslim Community Center with these burnings of a Holy Book is just idiotic. Muslims are free to be Muslims and to build their community center. There is no offense, unless you are offended by the very existence of Muslims.

And to invoke Christ in these hateful acts is betray His teachings. Period.

So far as the suppression of free thought goes, book burnings, even Nazi book burnings, are ineffectual. If an idea is so extant in the culture that you have to resort to such melodramatic gestures, then you are just publicizing your own ineffectuality in countering the arguments presented in the burned books....Far more effective is the banning of books. In totalitarian countries there are no subversive books to be burned; they have all been banned....At the very apex of thought suppression, the Islamic countries must rank the highest. Communist countries were able to ban subversive books, but they were never able to suppress interest in them. Islamic countries seem to have gone them one better. In Spain, thousands of books are translated from foreign languages into Spanish so the populace may have access to thoughts not native to their culture. In Egypt and other Arab speaking nations, outside of technical manuals, only a few books are translated into the native language.....They don't need to burn books or ban books. They have succeeded in abolishing all interest in foreign thoughts.

DADvocate said... I'd burn a Qu'ran but I don't want to pay money for one and burning it really wouldn't mean anything to me. I'd rather burn copies of "The Audicity of Hope."=============================If you do burn a copy, I hope you don't go out and actually buy one in order to burn it...because all that does is give Barry's money to Michelle Obama so she can buy a new pair of 800 dollar Italian shoes.

Interpol has now issued a terror warning alert in the event the dumbasses go forward with their book burnings.

You really have to marvel at the cognitive dissonance of guys like Alpha when they post stuff like this.

Alpha, if you scroll up you'll see I linked to the 10 Christian aid workers who were murdered by the Taliban for...wait for it...being Christian even though they were just providing medical care to impoverished Muslims.

So yeah they butcher 10 innocent do-gooders trying to help their own people but if some no name in Florida burns their 'sacred book' oh boy they'll really get mad.

My favorite piece of stupidity from the hate campaign against Muslims came from Newt Gingrich who defended less religious freedom for Muslims by saying that Saudi Arabia doesn't allow churches so we should be able to stop mosques.

So, according to the Newt, the USA should have no greater religious freedom than Saudi Arabia.

That is a dumb statement with no basis in reality. No-one has ever said or insinuated anything of the sort.

Oh, wait, my bad. When we brought all those ground zeros to mosques and other buildings in Iraq, you guys said we weren't harming Iraqis, but helping them. So I guess the supporters of the Iraq invasion and occupation did say that.

Remember "Shock and Awe campaign" is literally another way of saying "terror campaign." You can look it up in a thesaurus.

That said, I do object to churches like the Catholics and Mormons using the government to force their religious doctrines on everybody else ("ram it down our throat" as you guys like to say). I think it's deeply un-American.

Alpha says we have a "hate campaign against Muslims" which, translated, means that if you do anything to annoy them, the Muslims, it is hateful. Do not annoy Muslims. They have very thin skins, no sense of humor, and a hair trigger. Lefties love Muslims and show their tolerance to a religion that relegates women to second class and hates homosexuals by encouraging their stupidity and supporting them in viewing every slight as a cause for mayhem and death.

That said, I do object to churches like the Catholics and Mormons using the government to force their religious doctrines on everybody else ("ram it down our throat" as you guys like to say). I think it's deeply un-American

Ok help me out here and illustrate to me where the Catholics and Mormons used the government to force their religious doctrines on everyone.

Oh, wait, my bad. When we brought all those ground zeros to mosques and other buildings in Iraq, you guys said we weren't harming Iraqis, but helping them.

Yep it is your bad. Because if you remember, mosques were off limits to our forces, even when they were used as a base of operations for the insurgents. If you do some basic research, you'll see that the mosques that were attacked were done by the Sunni and Shia factions.

Alf: Oh, wait, my bad. When we brought all those ground zeros to mosques and other buildings in Iraq, you guys said we weren't harming Iraqis, but helping them. So I guess the supporters of the Iraq invasion and occupation did say that.

Remember "Shock and Awe campaign" is literally another way of saying "terror campaign." You can look it up in a thesaurus.

Even granting for the sake of argument that I supported the Iraq war, your comment is still up to your consistent quality-control standards of producing nothing but big ol' flailing whirly-gigs of colorful candy-cane non sequiturs with that delightful irrelevant-talking-point caramel-coating. You never disappoint, Alf. You're the compleat batshit party drone.

But we knew that. I'm just trying to put off some boring chores this afternoon.

Interesting that everyone from hand-wringing preachers to generals to Black Messiah himself have denounced this screwball and urged him not to burn a book "because of the threat of Islamic violence and antagonizing moderate Muslims". Many urging Florida authorities to find some law, any law to "stop this unspeakable act".

We see a pattern here.

1. Burning a cross or saying "ni$$ah" is unspeakable and will attract condemnation across the board and will result in firing or school expulsion, etc.. because blacks might react violently.

2. Burning a bible or attacking a Mormon church or saying "white boy" will NOT attract condemnation across the board because the peaceful targets will not react violently.

3. Burning a US flag is a constitutionally permitted freedom that all should support in theory because it shows "how good we are" in CHERISHING the 1st Amendment, but burning a Mexican flag is a racist "hate crime". Got it!

4. Obama, the generals, and a long line of progressive Jews and liberal ministers line up to support building the Ground Zero Mosque because it is "all about freedom"...calculating that it is OK because no American is likely to "commit violence" over it.

The lesson appears to be the 1st Amendment is endorsed and everyone lines up to "cherish it's exercise" - as long as everyone thinks the targets the 1st Amendment freedom is to be used against will not react violently. But if violence is thought to be a reaction to the provocation - expect that everyone from ernest liberal ministers up to the President to line up demanding the action not be done and that repercussions be inflicted on "racists, bigots, disturbers of the peace".

In effect, in practicality, a "violence veto" is applied to the 1st Amendment.

It is pretty obvious. And if the "violence veto" works so well, expect other groups to exercise it.And the same Muslim-born President who warned of dead "hero" troops and "a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda as myriads of "peaceful, moderate Muslims" become terrorists overnight - might change his tune about the wonderful Ground Zero Mosque, how flag-burning shows our greatness and tolerance...if violence happened during or after such acts.

Would we see media and public officials and pacifist ministers approach burning the US flag completely differently if the flag-burner was publicly shot by a mob of "Patriots" and the campus they came from burned to the ground??

Reminds me of the bottom line in a free society. You can't be free (of responsibility, or retain your free-will) if someone else pays.

Sigh. Best not to even attempt to use governance to "do good." Best leave that to the market, civil society, charity, others.

Freedom, not just free speech is encumbered when someone else is paying. Markets are a remarkable cooperative-effort creation. They can work (for good and bad) and I'm not personally responsible. A king or dictatorship can decide how to allocate resources and I'm not personally responsible. A voluntary-group, a democracy, a republic, etc. decides that I am a member of and I am (irrespective of how I voted). And I personally have to carry the moral obligation. Given the choice, I don't want to be responsible (and if I’m not responsible, others can remain free).

Time to ask D.C. to emulate George Washington who returned his crown. Let's elect a Congress committed to getting the central government out of the business of all things domestic, and return governance to institutions closer to the people, local political jurisdictions (perhaps divide each state up into twenty next-gen shires, each fully responsible for their own domestic affairs). These jurisdictions then would approximate the size of the original States, and citizens would be able to not only vote at the ballot box but with their feet.

Competition in governance would quickly end our current silliness. And if the Shire-of-Manhattan wanted to rescue Lehman Brothers, it wouldn't harm (or help) the rest of us. There’s certainly no efficiency gains for size (that’s old industrial age thinking) in this day of computers and networks (and open source software). The Shires would tax and retain and spend most taxes.

We’d invert the power pyramid (and honor George Washington’s action), where the most important governance would be the citizen, their family, and their enterprise, their civil society and their voluntary institutions, and then local elected bodies. State and Federal governance bodies would fade in importance, and be mostly provide arbitration of disputes and coordinators of negotiations of issues spanning Shires (shared resources like water, roads, etc.).

This transformation would mimic the changes seen in corporate America as computers and networks (cheap/free information flows) made most headquarters staff obsolete (with Boards rewarding CxOs for downsizing by splitting the savings with them) and divisions became much more effective because they were closer to the customer and would make better, quicker decisions, not be dictated to by a remote HQ, and many often became separate companies. Ford Motor no lingered owned the mines to the dealerships (but became a value network). Ditto Boeing.

We don’t need a constitutional amendment, just State and Federal bodies willing to deconstruct themselves, saying “we’re not going to do X any more, phasing out over Y years, good luck.” Granted this would require the same love of the people demonstrated by George Washington. Those addicted to spending 10B$ a day and telling the people (and their enterprise) how to spend another 10B$ a day will deride it. Those in love with power will hate it.

Haven't read the comments (sorry guys) but perhaps someone else mentioned that everyone should have just ignored the guy.

It's the publicity that has exacerbated this. Sure, it could have made it as a viral youtube -- but that would have been the cult leader's (his "church" has the marks of a behavior controlling group) choice to put it up.

So we have a media feeding frenzywith a lot of hyperventilating self righteousness going on here. (Now what was that about the GZM again?)

The question: Can he burn a copy of the Koran? Sure. Will he punished? No. Not under Florida or US law.

Should he burn this book? It's isn't really a "should" question. More a quality question --risk:benefit type thing. Seems to be an action without many, if any, redeeming points to be made. (But then he doesn't come across as thinking inthose terms.) It's not like he's protesting NOT being able to burn the books ....

(And the Professor is right -- there is no equivalency here with the Nazi book burning. Good grief!!)

As for the the "tolerant" Muslims -- who is it who is protesting? Seems the "fringe" Islamists are pretty numerous.

BTW -- Is the copy (copies) being burned in Arabic? If not, assuming I remember my World Religions class right, it ain't The Koran. Only the ARABIC Koran is The Koran. Has anyone authenticated these books? Are they are infidel produced fakes?

Haven't read the comments (sorry guys) but perhaps someone else mentioned that everyone should have just ignored the guy.

Better yet, the Feds should have contacted this nutball long ago, quietly, away from the cameras, and let him know what they thought would happen. If this would inflame muslims around the world, how in the hell do you let it escalate this far?

After the left commits some provocative act like a flag burning, we are told that the highest American value is not represented by the flag but by toleration of those people who desecrate the flag. By the same token, shouldn't the left be saying to Muslims that the highest value of the religion of peace is represented not by the Koran but by tolerating those people who wish to burn it? I look forward to the President's speech against those who preach violence against this misguided pastor.

Alpha Liberal wrote:Interpol has now issued a terror warning alert in the event the dumbasses go forward with their book burnings.

There has been a rancid campaign of hatred against Muslims, led by Gingrich, Palin and others. We are harvesting the bitter fruit of that hate campaign.

I happen to think the burning of the koran is pretty inflammatory myself and would reccomend that he doens't do it, but it is funny how liberals are suddenly worried about respect of religion and even making sure that we don't offend the muslims who will turn around and kill us.If we burn the koran it's an affront to muslims and they will riot. If someone makes a cartoon the least bit critical of Islam they will riot. If we don't build the mosque in the heart of the WTC, they will riot. If we set foot on Saudi Arabian soil in an effort to contain Iraq they will fly planes into our buildings. They hate us because of our policies. If we kill terrorists they will only recruit more terrorists etc etc. It makes you wonder what WONT set the radical Islamists off.

Shortly after Obama became President, the military had to (correctly, IMO) burn a slew of contraband bibles in Afghanistan. From Oct 29 2009, as Drudge mentions:

Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.

The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.

Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation, Wright said.

"The decision was made that it was a 'force protection' measure to throw them away, (then burn them with other base rubbish) because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," Wright told CNN on Tuesday.

The Bibles were sent to a Christian zealot enlisted soldier by his church. The soldier had misunderstood proselytization rules, telling church leaders he "could hand out bibles printed in Pashto and Dari as long as he didn't preach" The enlisted soldier was wrong.

Jones and his church have decided to become agents for conflict and division. He needs someone to tell him that Americans should not judge all Muslims by the actions of a small group of terrorists and I hope somebody tells Muslims around the world not to judge Christians or all of America by the actions of a radical fringe like the Dove World Outreach Center.

I don’t think this guy should be burning any Qurans, but it is his right as long as it is on private property. If idiots can burn flags, why can’t this idiot burn a Quran? He has that liberty.

I hate Islam, I hate the Quran and everything those two putrid religious institutions stand for. I'd like to see Islam eradicated from the face of the earth, never to be realized or resurrected again. Many say they would love to go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby and save the world from his insanity. I would say the same thing, but I'd kill Mohammed, may he burn in a hell of pig shit for all eternity, instead and save the world from real insanity.

But I would not go book burning because it's just stupid. You attack their ideas, not the vessels that contain them.

AlphaLiar is at it again, defending the indefensible. Now all of a sudden, this leftard is for religious freedom, property rights, and *gasp* protecting the poor, iddy biddy, defenseless Muslims. You are such a fucking tool.

I happen to think the burning of the koran is pretty inflammatory myself and would reccomend that he doens't do it, but it is funny how liberals are suddenly worried about respect of religion and even making sure that we don't offend the muslims who will turn around and kill us.

So only you, and I presume conservatives, can feel this is inflammatory.

Better yet, the Feds should have contacted this nutball long ago, quietly, away from the cameras, and let him know what they thought would happen. If this would inflame muslims around the world, how in the hell do you let it escalate this far?

Aside from the fact that this sounds a little creepy (would you like feds showing up and calmly advising you it might be better if you didn’t do something that is perfectly legal?), how would those feds have known about this if it weren’t publicized? I guess if they are keeping track of every annoying thing citizens are doing…which leads right back to creepy.

It’s legal, and I don’t love the idea of government officials from generals to presidents telling them not to. Contrast to the mosque, where private citizens were irritated and it's, again, government officials telling them, what, not to care?

You mean if Hitler had declared Nazism to be a new religion, himself to be its prophet and Mein Kampf to be its Holy Book, rather than resist his fascist aggression, our president would have bowed down to his representatives, made endless excuses for why Nazi atrocities were really our fault and sent Nazi-American envoys at U.S. taxpayers’ expense on missions of understanding throughout the Axis world?

If an American pastor in 1942 had burned a copy of Mein Kampf, would the president of the United States have called press conference to condemn him?

Americans have muddled along with the absolutist interpretation of the 1st Amendments "religious freedom" because the 3 truly dangerous ideologies that challenged our existence in the past did not have a religious component to the ideology. (slave-holding, fascism, communism). But had Nazism been created with a strong Wiccan component as many of their early theoreticians wanted but vetoed on grounds of alienating German Christians...if Communism had started as the Marxist Christian Liberation Theology it later morphed into?

It seems we would have had to recognize at that point we could not allow the Nazi religious ideology or Marxist Christian redistributionist religion free access to take root in America - that the 1st could not be used to undermine the rest of the Constitution.

As was, no one said a peep as we dismantled the militarist Shinto religious school in Japan after WWII.

We can look at the likely result, which will probably be bad, but that's not supposed to limit our speech, is it?

You think all those peace demonstrations we had didn't embolden our enemies? Of course they did. So what? We shouldn't be giving up our First Amendment freedoms in wartime, yet that's exactly what these nutters in Florida are being asked to do.

We can look at the likely result, which will probably be bad, but that's not supposed to limit our speech, is it?

Just based on the way you phrased that, wouldn't shouting fire in a crowded theater rise to the same level, ie, unprotected speech? I'm referring to this only based on your question.

In my opinion, such that it is, there's no difference. Cedarford made a good point earlier when he asked if burning a flag were to have the same probability of retributive violence, would it be as sacred a cow to those who espose it. His "violence veto" certainly seems to be the common thread here.

It might piss them off and they get violent when they get pissed off, so don't do anything, even something that's not only legal but supposed to be among our most cherished virtues, that pisses them off.

Yeah, Cedarford is right. If people got killed for opposing Christianity, we'd be a lot more careful about pissing off Christians. That's the reality.

The nutters in Florida aren't going to kill anyone, which is why everyone is piling on them- it's perfectly safe to do so.

It's always that way- people come out of the woodwork to take brave stands for free speech when there's no danger. Muslims, though... well, remember Danny Pearl.

The mental gymnastics required to say that one form of offensive speech is OK but another is not is a sign that someone is simply taking sides. Well, OK, fine, take the side. But don't bullshit us that there's some Constitutional principle involved.

That's why I'm kind of glad the Koran burning came up when it did. It's a real good counterpoint to the GZM discussion. How is one OK and the other not if your only criteria is offensiveness? Watching people torture the First Amendment into a pretzel is clarifying for me.

"OMFA! If that man burns a Quran, I will kill you!""Yes, he mustn't burn a Quran, it's insensitive. This man can hardly be expected to refrain from killing people if anyone burns his religion's holy book.""That's right!" lights American flag on fire "Death to America! Death to Christians!"

Palin takes pretty much the same stance Obama takes. Are you criticizing Palin?

The thing about the mosque was its sleazy claim to be one thing when it was clearly another.

Clarify yourself here. What are you saying? Are you buying the loony extreme right view that it is a 'celebration mosque'?

Peace demonstrations... nutters in Florida

How can you compare peace demonstrations with these nutters in Florida with regards to emboldening our enemies? They are nowhere near the same things. One is calling for an end to war while the other is a direct assault on a religion and people who follow that religion. Very different.

"if burning a flag were to have the same probability of retributive violence, would it be as sacred a cow to those who espouse it."

This is a good question, but the answer is no. Liberals don't have double standards for Muslims because they're willing to be violent. They have double standards for Muslims because they believe their enemy is American conservatism. The double standard is merely a byproduct of being unprincipled.

FDR yes, certainly when it mattered. A nice one-two capped by Truman, who ironically first proposed universal health coverage which is now considered fascism by many on the right today.

So...how did I lose you when I assume the "lefty" you were talking about was Stalin? Is it because you disagree that Stalin was a leftist or that you think FDR had more to do with ending fascism than Stalin? I'd be very interested in both answers.

Not that I care what Sarah Palin thinks, but no, she doesn't take the same position as the President. She opposes the GZM. Obama does not. On the nutters, the President is the President and she's an itinerant Fox News analyst (may she remain one) and the President matters a bit more. I don't see why what Sarah Palin thinks matters here.

When I see a bunch of foreign funding from countries where people hate us, and that funding is going to build a 13 story mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, I think that maybe it's meant as a way to humiliate us. Most people in the US agree. Yes, it's sleazy to say it's about being nice to Americans when there seems to be very little nice about it. If you don't see it that way, fine, but it's not that important.

What's important is that if we have a First Amendment, and if some things are offensive, then why is the President and his cabinet so selective about what they condemn?

They seem to care much more about offending people of one faith. If that's simply a practical foreign policy goal, I can understand it. After all, the last President went out of his way to do the same thing. But I think it's a bit more than that.

On peace demonstrations, I'm making the point that some speech is going to undermine US government goals. If you can't see how a peace demonstration (or a great many of them involving millions of people) would give the enemy the idea that he can win, you lack imagination. Wars take more than one party to fight.

Speech does have consequences, but the government can't limit our speech because they don't like the results.

I don't consider Stalin to be a "lefty", DFR, absolutely. I'm pretty comfortable saying FDR had much more to do with crushing the fascists than Stalin did. You do?

I honestly have to split, otherwise I would detail all the things wrong with that, but I'll hopefully get some backup from other hereabouts that know something about the herculean Soviet efforts in WWII compared to our own, as well as detailing exactly were socialism and communism exists on the left-right spectrum.

Peace, though, Garage. Of the resident liberals, you're the first on my "have a beer with" list.

Wow. Just wow. We're constantly told to beware discrimination against Muslims. Looks to me like the government and media pretty much assume that a lot of Muslims are completely insane. "Don't offend them! Don't offend them! They'll go nuts and start killing people!"

I read 'lefty' to be FDR. The point being, I think, that FDR would be considered a socialist today with a 'fascist' taxing agenda by conservatives. And yet this ‘lefty’ took us to war and stopped Hitler. Or helped stop Hitler. Stalin and Churchill played important roles.

Stalin wasn't a 'lefty' he was a communist dictator. He was not a socialist. I would argue he was not a communist either - but the system of gov't under communism left it open for a dictator to run everything. But it's not the leftist political philosophy that makes it so. The same thing happens in right wing run govt's too - Chile as an example.

Burning a Quran is silly, but the reaction to the plans to burn one is outrageous. Our national policy is now what? To kowtow to death threats over even the most trivial of provocations?

Wouldn't the sane, tolerant reaction be to just say, "That guy's a nut, but this is America. That's one of the things that makes this place different. You're free to be a nut here. You can think and express whatever you want. Even if nobody else agrees with you. It's one of the things that makes this country great."?

Obama: "If all I knew about the Rev. Jones was that he wished to burn Korans, I too would hasten to condemn him. But I urge everyone to also consider his good ministry to the poor and marginalized of Florida. This man has done many good works. If we consider the horrible way that his Welsh forebears were treated by English imperialists can any of us say that we would act differently. Toleration is meaningless unless we open our hearts and minds to the full meaning of the Rev. Jones' ministry."

k*thy: He needs someone to tell him that Americans should not judge all Muslims by the actions of a small group of terrorists and I hope somebody tells Muslims around the world not to judge Christians or all of America by the actions of a radical fringe like the Dove World Outreach Center.

Genius! Why wasn't this thought of before? I'll get on the horn to Florida and you get dialing to the Muslims, okay?

Oh man the world's gonna be a better place tomorrow.

P.S. Am I the only one who keeps thinking "1/4 cleansing cream" whenever I see "Dove World Outreach Center"?

Obama: "If all I knew about the Rev. Jones was that he wished to burn Korans, I too would hasten to condemn him. But I urge everyone to also consider his good ministry to the poor and marginalized of Florida. This man has done many good works. If we consider the horrible way that his Welsh forebears were treated by English imperialists can any of us say that we would act differently. Toleration is meaningless unless we open our hearts and minds to the full meaning of the Rev. Jones' ministry."

Matt wrote (referring to Garage Mahal)://I read 'lefty' to be FDR. The point being, I think, that FDR would be considered a socialist today with a 'fascist' taxing agenda by conservatives. And yet this ‘lefty’ took us to war and stopped Hitler.//

That's fine. That lefty also rounded up the Japanese, kicked them out of their homes and businesses and sent them off to concentration camps. He also captured nazi saboteurs including some that were american citizens as soon as they landed before they did any sabotage, "tried" them in a kangaroo fashion then had them executed. He was also farm more intrusive than Bush could ever have dreamed, checking all mail for example and going after media critics. Additionally bombed Germany with a ferocity that evil George Bush could not even fathom.

There are those who say that burning a Koran will lead to violence by denizens of "the religion of peace".

Either there will, or will not be violence. If not, then are not these anti-burnites seriously slandering Muslims? If there is violence, then the real problem is that these people are way too sensitive.

A cure for excess sensitivity is to become habituated to it. Most Americans don't give a fig when we see anti-American protests--they are so common, who cares? What I would suggest is a live web cam showing a fresh Koran being burned every couple of minutes. Eventually the hotheads will just get used to it and grow-up a bit.Or come and chop-off our heads.

Don't build the mosque, especially after what the Imam said on CNN last night.

Tolerance is our aspiration, and we're a lot better at it than we used to be, but people get worn down by provocations, and that's what I see going on in Manhattan. I think it's only fair to expect some understanding and sensitivity from the other side.

Freeman Hunt: Wow. Just wow. We're constantly told to beware discrimination against Muslims. Looks to me like the government and media pretty much assume that a lot of Muslims are completely insane. "Don't offend them! Don't offend them! They'll go nuts and start killing people!"

This keeps up and maybe the Christians will decide they're entitled to a slice o' that respec' pie, too. "Nice country you got here. We haven't gone all St. Bartholomew's on anybody in a few centuries. Shame if we had to change that policy..."

There are those who say that burning a Koran will lead to violence by denizens of "the religion of peace".

Either there will, or will not be violence. If not, then are not these anti-burnites seriously slandering Muslims? If there is violence, then the real problem is that these people are way too sensitive.

I can't help wondering whether Phelps and his hateful protests could be stopped if a similar group of powerful people leaned on him.

Oh, but the only people *he* expresses hate for are Americans, and (these days) mostly American soldiers. That's different. *His* 1A rights are sacrosanct. Now let him protest Muslims the way he protests military funerals, and you'd see a different reaction, wouldn't you?

(Which I suppose goes to show Phelps is savvier than this Florida guy.)

Expat(ish) wrote: "And will people riot if a digital version of their holy book is deleted or burned?"

Let's put it to the test. I've just downloaded a PDF of the Qur'an in English. Now I deleted it (while humming the "Star Spangled Banner," btw). Boom. It's gone, destroyed, eradicated, exterminated (in case any wiseguys snark about the file being only marked as free space, be it known I use Freeraser which renders deleted files as gone as any Jew fed into an Auschwitz oven) And I committed said erasure with malice aforethought.

So I flushed a digital load of 7th century bullshit into the æther. Now I’m in search of some 1st century bullshit to delete… King James version preferred… Got some! … Now it’s gone. Hurrah! Next, I need some Iron Age crap-a-doodle… this could take a while… I’ve got a Septuagint Torah (in English) and an Iliad in Greek. Let’s see… hmmmm… the Torah is basically same as that 1st century dreck so there’s no need to keep it. Gone, good ‘n gone. The Iliad is different. I don’t read Greek, but I have read the English translation (Lombardo version most recently) Good stuff that. If you’re going to structure your life around an ancient text the Iliad is the golden choice. Keep it. Hurrah!

24 million Soviet dead in WWII. Why should the revisionists think that figure bolsters their argument. The Germans did most of that damage. Much of the rest of it could have been avoided with some decent generalship.

Other herculean Russian WWII efforts... hmmm...

How about the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939? Couldn't have a world war without that. Definitely herculean.

So, Quaestor... planning to change your handle to Rosy-Fingered Dawn? Kidnap Wiccan priestesses and dole them out as party favors to your friends? Drag corpses behind your chariot, their legs and head going bump-bump-bump behind you?

I'm just not sure how you plan to do this. Even really really enthusiastic Greeks and Romans didn't actually manage to find much life guidance in the Iliad, though it was always snazzy to have quotes from it on the tip of your tongue.

Reverend Jones should know better than taking the word of a Muslim, especially a Muslim cleric - who told him that if he called off the burning, they'll move the proposed Cordoba mosque away from Ground Zero.

"Are you buying the loony extreme right view that it is a 'celebration mosque'?"

I'm willing to entertain the thought that the initial persons involved didn't have that intention.

But might it be seen as a victory mosque by others?

Considering that the "others" gun down Christian medical aid workers, saw the heads of journalists, fly airplanes into buildings full of people and wait until US forces are surrounded by children before detonating bombs... how "loony" is it to claim they won't?

"How can you compare peace demonstrations with these nutters in Florida with regards to emboldening our enemies? They are nowhere near the same things."

Why not? Because their intentions are pure?

"One is calling for an end to war while the other is a direct assault on a religion and people who follow that religion. Very different."

Right the first time. Pure intentions.

What I sort of wish people would understand is that peaceful or not, moderate or not, Islam is not Christianity. WE do not care if we appear weak. Our culture is based on the notion that the meek will inherit the Earth (particularly if they simultaneously undertake every lowly task with the energy and dedication as if doing it for God.) Muslims, on the other hand, are near impossible to proselytize to Christianity because they feel, bone deep, that Jesus Christ is impossible. It is not *possible* that God would let his son be humiliated or killed. So either Christians are terribly confused or Jesus didn't die, or both.

What this means, Matt, is that demonstrating for Peace is most likely understood differently by an Islamic informed culture, as weakness. If not because of the demonstrations themselves, then because our government is unable to shut them down. Because the only reason they aren't shut down *must* be that they *can't* be shut down. So, weakness.

I won't claim that Muslims who live in other cultures are incapable of making the cognitive leap to understanding ours, but humility as a virtue is an extremely foreign idea to get one's mind around.